Beach_MU

True they do continuously move, but the question you must then consider is that the fossils must have been deposited on that rock millions of years ago when it was at sea level, if it ever was.

Beach_MU

My point was that you jump to the conclusion that simply because the Italica legion was lawless that doesn't suggest anything about the beliefs of each individual member. Your argument is the equivalent to suggesting that there could not possibly be any Christians in Muslim countries because the country is Muslim.

I DID NOT say that it is invalid because there are references to the supernatural. I said it appears legendary because the story has been reconstructed around a supernatural framework, and pointed to John's "seven signs" as an example of this reconstructing.

Please explain the difference you're making between references to the supernatural and a supernatural framework, because regardless of what you're trying to call it, it boils down to the existence of supernatural elements as your proof that it is legendary.

I probably wasn't clear. By "critical" I do not mean "negative." Rather, I mean, in the sense of an objective, well-rounded, informed, critique of the subject's strengths and weaknesses in relation to his mission or goals. Imagine if Luke had written "Jesus' great strengths were his imagination and crowd management; but he had a short temper and little tolerance for initiative in his subordinates." Such remarks are common in among people writing and thinking about history. But Luke is writing a novel and creating a legend.
...
Again, the issue is what was included, and what is not, not whether everything can be included. Apparently four writers on Jesus' life were completely uninterested in any personal details about him.

You're assuming that the writers should have written a certain way so that they would satisfy your definition of what a historical account should include. Does every historical account contain these personal details and trivial asides that don't impact the events themselves?

Again, it is not the presence of the supernatural. It is that the history itself is supernatural.

How does the claim that "the history itself is supernatural" differ any from the fact that there is a presence of the supernatural in the history?

They don't just reference the OT, they build stories out of it. Otto of Friesing wrote a history of Frederick Barbarossa; but died and his secretary completed it. His secretary unfortunately completed it by copying events and speeches from Roman historians, particularly Sallust. Consequently, no one considers it reliable. When gospel writers do the same thing, how do you think we should regard it?

You're confusing the idea of fulfilled prophecy with taking facts from the past and saying that they occured today.

The gospels were all written at least after 70 and Luke/Acts after 95. I personally believe them all to be second century, but don't feel like arguing that at this point. They refer to events that happened prior to 65. The history had already happened and no one was "living it." Practically everyone who knew something about it was dead or scattered. Further, they were written for non-Jewish audiences who had no idea what the historical record was.

First off, your dating is the oldest I've ever heard from probably anybody, so I'd be curious to hear your evidence to support that, but regardless during the time period oral tradition was very common and widespread and so most of the Jewish audiences would know a lot of the details. Also the Gospels were not all written for a non-Jewish audience. If they were then there wouldn't a strong Jewish influence in the wording of some of them.

We didn't "suddenly decide" anything. I am putting a list of reasons, when taken together, show that the gospels (not "the Bible") should be properly regarded as legendary material.

Luke investigates nothing, although s/he did take great pains to copy, sometimes badly, from other texts, Mark, Q and Josephus. If you read Luke's gospel, you will soon find that events in Jesus' life are simply strung together like beads on a string, without reference to time, date, cause, order, or consideration of their relation to the larger pattern of events in Palestine. Luke does not at all think like a historian. He is creating a legend.

Nowhere do the gospelers affirm a commitment to a balanced view of the subject.

Does the lack of such a sentence prove or disprove anything. Anyone can claim to do anything, but the important evidence is whether or not they did. As far as the sources please don't tell me you seriously consider the Q theory to be true. The entire Q source is based solely off of speculation to contain anything that isn't in the other gospels. Where is the logic in that?

You keep missing the boat. When Matthew wants to give Pilate a reason for reluctance to kill Jesus, he does not give a few paragraphs referring to the political situation in Palestine, or Pilate's relation to Herod, or his personality, the way Tacitus, Josephus or Themosticles might. Rather, Pilate's wife has a dream.....in the gospels, supernatural explanation is the first explanation reached for, not the last. Additionally, it is often the only explanation given.

If I missed the boat it's because it had wholes in it long ago and sank well before it got to me. Consider this: if something is supernatural in nature, then is there going to be a non supernatural explaination given for it? I seriously doubt it, because if there was then it wouldn't be supernatural by definition.

Again, the boat has sailed without you. The ignorance displayed by the gospel writers of Jewish legal procedure makes a mockery of any claim to truth on their part. It does not "invalidate" the trial; it turns it into fiction.

The fact that the trial was illegal suggests that Jesus was unjustly crucified by the Jewish leaders. Can you consider for a moment that perhaps the trial was actually not held properly? I seriously doubt that every trial ever held throughout history was legal especially if the people holding the trial had a separate agenda, which the Bible states they did. If the trial was illegal then a correct historical account would depict the trial as being illegal, would it not? So then how can you draw the conclusion that since the account depicts an illegal trial, that the authors must therefore have no understanding of the legal system (which would not be very likely since how many people do you think were simply ignorant of the law back then when you could be stoned for doing something wrong)? Is it not just as likely that the trial actually was illegal and the accounts completely accurate relating to the trial?

Family Man

Some random thoughts on this thread and Beach_MU's postion:

Christians frequently bemoan "relative morality" in favor of "absolute morality" -- until it is pointed out to them that the Bible supports things, like slavery, that we moderns find morally repugnant. Then, suddenly, relative morality becomes exceedingly popular and we have to see things through "the Roman (or ancient) point of view" -- as if that means anything. The simple fact is that slavery was a brutal and cruel institution, Jesus knew it, and he not only didn't challenge it -- he, in essence, supported it. That's not what I would consider moral.

The problem you're having, Beach, is that Vork has neatly exposed the contradictions in your philosophy. Accusing him of "hatred of Christianity" is only avoiding the issue and doesn't reflect well on your position. The Bible does support slavery, which even you can't defend. And, yes, while many Christians opposed slavery in antebellum America, more Christians supported it and considered it biblical. Furthermore, all of the abolitionists were from the North; none were from the very Christian South. In other words, abolitionism did not come from Christianity; it came from the society the abolitionists grew up in. Christianity was superimposed on it, just as Christianity was used to justify slavery. Had there been no Christianity, there still would have been abolitionists.

As for plate tectonics, I suggest you check any good college text on geology. Every one of them will discuss plate tectonics as established fact. There is a scientific consensus on the topic. Your ignorance of it isn't helping the credibility of your arguments.

And yes, the fossils that can be found at high altitudes used to be a sea level. Study a map of the Himalayas. Consider that India used to be located near South Africa. Remember that India is continuing to move northward (albeit at a very slow pace) and maybe you'll understand how a fossil at sea level can end up in a mountain.

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]</p>

Skeptical

First off, the site is not called "anti creationism", it's called talkorigins, try reading the urls. Second, if you want evidence, try reading a geology book by a scientist who is actually a geologist and not some fundy pretending to know something. Do you take your car to a baker? Would you take a broken vcr to your dentist? And no, it's not an argument from authority, it's an argument about _experts_. I believe that people who study geology know more about geology than somone who does not study it for a living.

There's a reason that every single reputable geologist on the planet thinks that the global flood theory is bunk. They study it for a living, they perform carefully controlled experiments and they observe the way the world _is_, not the way some myth says it should be. And before you try the "scientists are just biased against creationists" ploy, I don't trust scientists, I trust the scientific method. It produces results that work, are verifiable and testable. A scientist can fake an experiment, but it won't get by peer review. That's the difference between science and wishful thinking.

The liklihood that all fossils at high altitudes are due to plate tectonics is close to 100%. The vast amount of evidence from geology tell us this is the case. The idea that they were placed there by a global flood does not have even a trace of corroborating evidence.

As for giving you "a case where it has happened", volcanoes have formed in the ocean within the time period of written history. Most other geological events take a little longer than our paltry few thousand years of history can account for, so we can only use indirect evidence. If you accept the indirect evidence we do have, there are lot's of cases where it has happened.


Yes, as a matter of fact I read all the links I post. What's more, I even research the topics instead of posting nonsense I read at some fundy site about a global flood accounting for the fossil record.

I'll alert the palentologists and geologists immediately to share your opinion with them. I'm sure the fact that you have arrived at an a priori assumption without having studied the data and have come to a conclusion will be viewed as important.


Yes, as I said it discusses ideas that have been "posited" as explanations. Scientists do that. They posit possible explanations and then actually look at the data to see if it conforms, not the other way around like fundy creationists. Notice again that "global flood" is not listed. This is because there is not a shred, not an ounce nor a smidgen of evidence that any such thing ever occurred.


I'm glad you think your opinion is a more accurate picture of geology and paleontology than that held by geologists and paleontologists. Tell me, do you pull your own teeth and operate on yourself as well?

As usual, a creationist who has been seriously misled (that would be you) has utterly failed to see the point made by someone trying to lift their veil of ignorance (that would be me). I'll say it again: none of the ways posited as potential ways for fossils to be created requires or even allows for a global flood. The fossil record absolutely is incompatible with the theory that all the fossils were created during the same period of time by a global flood. It's not conjecture, it's not a guess, it's not some sort of anti creationist propaganda. The fossil record alone makes the idea of the global flood utterly, completely and incontrovertibly ridiculous. If you hold to the idea of a global flood producing the fossil record you are simply putting on blinders. It's bunk and you've been lied to. Period. Wake up and look at the _evidence_. There are plenty of references to scientific literature at the talkorigins.org site links I posted for you.

I also notice you didn't care to address the age of the earth questions. If you didn't read them, I really suggest you do. Educate yourself. Creationists lie, quote mine and distort the truth every chance they get. Every single bit of evidence we have points to an earth 4.5 billion years old and that there was _no_ global flood.

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]</p>

Skeptical

Yes, and your point would be? Is there a single scientific reason why this couldn't be the case? Is there evidence you have to present to a geologist or palentologist that you would like to write a paper on and have it peer reviewed?

See, geologists and palentologists have been doing that for quite some time. They have been submitting ideas and hard, empirical research, not just conjecture. That's why these ideas are so well accepted by people who study these matters for a living. Course, if you want to listen to a non-specialist, non-scientist who "just thinks it couldn't be true", go right ahead.

Skeptical

Originally posted by Beach_MU:
<strong>As far as the sources please don't tell me you seriously consider the Q theory to be true. The entire Q source is based solely off of speculation to contain anything that isn't in the other gospels. Where is the logic in that?</strong>

The idea of there being a Q is based on the fact that it is almost unquestionable that Mat. and Luke used Mark. Given this fact and given the material common to Mat. and Luke, it appears they had another, common source other than Mark. This theory is accepted by nearly every single bilbical scholar, conservative and liberal alike.

Whether or not particular "reconstructions" of Q are accurate are matters of considerable debate, but the general idea of a Q source is not much debated by serious biblical scholars. How do you account for the material common to Mat. and Luke that is not found in Mark?

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]</p>

Beach_MU

I would encourage you to look at the title of the website, not the url. When you go to the page the top of the window gives you the page title "James Meritt's General Anti-Creationism FAQ" and the top of the page has the Header "The General Anti-Creationism FAQ". Secondly, my statement that the site contains no actual evidence relating to plate techtonics is accurate. The site you gave is basically the Evolutionist's equivalent to what you refered to as "some fundy pretending to know something". As for the geology books and the scientific method it is not nearly as infallible as you give it credit for. Before you attack my statement, I'm not saying that geology books are falsified, but it is true that the "scientific method" produces differing and unreliable results for things such as carbon dating and radioactive testing. This is a fact that is widely accepted unless it has changed in the past several years with new techniques (which if it has please feel free to enlighten me)

none of the ways posited as potential ways for fossils to be created requires or even allows for a global flood. The fossil record absolutely is incompatible with the theory that all the fossils were created during the same period of time by a global flood. It's not conjecture, it's not a guess, it's not some sort of anti creationist propaganda. The fossil record alone makes the idea of the global flood utterly, completely and incontrovertibly ridiculous.

Answer me this one simple question. Did not one of the theories that was "posited" on the site you provided state:
"Theory 2: An animal/plant is rapidly buried during a flood/mudslide.

This has been proven to be a very feasible and common method of fossilization. The carcass is protected from scavengers and the interference of other elements."
Where in this statement does it make "the idea of the global flood utterly, completely and incontrovertibly ridiculous"? I'm sorry if you believe that creationists are trying to lie to world and distort the truth but your very claims have twice fallen short of disproving their claims.

As far as addressing the age of the earth question, I apologize, but I do have a limited amount of time free to be able to post and with lots of people attacking my position from every possible angle at once I'm sure you can understand if I don't reply to every single point at a moments notice. I do plan to look into the age of the earth question, but I would appreciate it if you would consider that I do have other things to do than simply debate with you on a forum.

Beach_MU

First off, I haven't suggested that at some points we should consider the historical environment and at others ignore it. I think that when you read anything you should consider the time period and the audience to which it is written otherwise you aren't going to have an accurate view of what it says. And the fact that Jesus didn't challenge the institution of slavery, no matter how cruel does not mean that he supported it.

The problem you're having, Beach, is that Vork has neatly exposed the contradictions in your philosophy. Accusing him of "hatred of Christianity" is only avoiding the issue and doesn't reflect well on your position. The Bible does support slavery, which even you can't defend. And, yes, while many Christians opposed slavery in antebellum America, more Christians supported it and considered it biblical. Furthermore, all of the abolitionists were from the North; none were from the very Christian South. In other words, abolitionism did not come from Christianity; it came from the society the abolitionists grew up in. Christianity was superimposed on it, just as Christianity was used to justify slavery. Had there been no Christianity, there still would have been abolitionists.

You are mixing up the ideas of supporting something with not challenging it, an idea I'm sure is going to be lost with you, however the entire point of this discussion started from the ridiculous claim that seems to attribute slavery to Christianity. You fail to realize that just as abolitionists would have existed without Christianity so too slavery would have existed without Christianity. We can speculate on what would have happened if the influence of Christianity had not been present in history but it would be just that: speculation. If anything when you look at our recent history, our countries political and social situation had declined and while I'm sure there is no way you will agree, there is also a "coincidental" decline in the influence of Christianity in our nation. There is no way you dispute that the influence of Christianity has decreased in the past few years with philosophies such as post modernism and multiculturalism entering into the scene and I would ask you if there is any evidence that the influence of these ideas have helped our nation from digressing further. As far as Vork's "hatred of Christianity" he has declared that
Sounds pretty much like hatred to me. I could be wrong, but I can only base my opinion of him off of what he's said.

As for plate tectonics, I suggest you check any good college text on geology. Every one of them will discuss plate tectonics as established fact. There is a scientific consensus on the topic.

I appreciate your concern and do plan to investigate the topic further but you should also realize that our scientific knowledge is by no means infallible and is this the same scientific consensus that someone argued earlier today was being manipulated by Creationists? If it is then why would they manipulate it to support macro-evolution? The truth is that evolutionists do exactly what you were accusing me of doing: changing the standard when it doesn't agree with what they believe to be true, so don't kid yourself into believing that all evolutionists are perfect and don't try and make the evidence fit. Use the same discretion when reviewing your evidence that you would suggest I use.

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Beach_MU ]</p>

Skeptical

I'm well aware of that. You said the web site was called "anti creationism", it's not. That particular faq is called "anti creationist", but there are plenty of other faq's on the site, it's just the one I found that had the specific info I was looking for.

Wrong. It's the cliff notes version of scientific fact, backed up by scientific references. Creationist fundies are backed up by appeals to mythology. Just a slight difference. If you don't believe the site, check the references.

Carbon dating is reliable for objects less than 50,000 years old under appropriate conditions. Under certain conditions, the results are inaccurate. This is not the fault of the method and its really only relevant for non-geological time based calculations. Other forms of radioactive isotope dating are generally accurate to withing + or - 5% or less. The bottom line is that when multiple tests are performed using different methods, radioactive isotope dating give accurate results within an acceptable margin of error. If you think this is not true, post your data. Go ahead. Show me that the thousands of geologists who do this for a living don't have a clue what they are doing and you know better.

Typical BS and bunk. It is widely accepted that radioactive isotopes give margins of error within acceptable levels. Whether an event happened 300 million years ago or 240 million years ago is within an acceptable level of error.

Yes, and where exactly does it say "global" as part of that example? Right, it doesn't. You really are fond of selective reading aren't you? I said the _fossil record_, not just the making of fossils. The layers that we see clearly could not have been created by a global flood. That was _your_ claim, not mine. The fossil record that we see is completely incompatible with a global flood. Period. Could fossils be made by mudslides caused by floods? Sure. Could the fossil record we have have been made by a single global flood? Not a chance.

I don't beleive creationists are liars, I know it for a fact. Every creationist site I have ever seen and every creationist I have ever spoken with are full of blatant distortions and selective quote mining. They have no shame and will resort to any tactic to delude the gullible.

Show me your evidence that radioactive isotopes do not provide accurate resultes within acceptable margins of error. Show me your evidence that a global flood could account for the layered fossil record that we see. Show me the _evidence_, not some sort of "well, I don't think it could have happened that way".

Fine, so do I. I will point out that the articles are fairly short and could probably be read in under an hour of free time. If you read them the way you seem to read my posts though then it will be a waste of your time. Selective reading looking for excuses not to listen because it doesn't jibe with the lies you've been told isn't conducive to learning.

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]</p>

Beach_MU

I find it interesting that earlier I debated with people that suggested that the NT was written so long ago and so long after the events that it is unreliable (which I don't agree with, but that's a different topic) and then now you argue that there we "unquestionable" know that there was some mysterious Q source. How is it that we suddenly had such certainty over such a long period of time? Regardless of your reasoning the existence of common material in both Matthew and Luke that is not found in Mark does not imply that there was some lost Q source that they were pulling from. Consider this. If you and I both wanted to investigate an event, we would both probably talk to witnesses and gather peoples' accounts, right? Let's suppose you talk to person A and then person B. Afterwards if I talk to person A and then a person C, would it not make sense that there would be common material in our two accounts? Now our two accounts from person A wouldn't be identical but they would be similar, would they not? So why is it impossible to consider that Matthew and Luke both independently talked to people who Mark didn't talk to. Likewise why wouldn't it be fair to say that Matthew and Mark both talked to some of the same people as did Luke and Mark? After all when different newspapers print a story about an event they have similar content(probably from the same witnesses) and different details that they gathered for other witnesses.